Andhra Pradesh HC: Omnibus Allegations Insufficient to Deny Pre-Arrest Bail to Accused Women

Shielding the liberty of an accused facing vague charges while refusing to harbor those with specific violent overt acts, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has underscored the necessity of individualizing culpability in criminal proceedings under the new penal laws.

A single-judge bench presided over by Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao adjudicated a petition seeking the grant of anticipatory bail for four individuals accused of various offences including causing grievous hurt and criminal intimidation.

Court Refuses Protection for Primary Accailants

The Court observed that the accusations against Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 involved specific overt acts, particularly noting that Accused No. 1 allegedly caused a grievous injury to the complainant, while Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were responsible for simple injuries. The bench held that granting pre-arrest bail in such instances would undermine the investigative process, especially when material witnesses are yet to be examined.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Having regard to the gravity and nature of the allegations against the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3/Accused Nos.1 to 3, and in view of the specific overt acts attributed against them, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail as it would amount to granting protection or shield to the person against whom specific allegations are leveled..."

Relief for Accused Facing Vague Charges

Contrarily, the Court found the allegations against Petitioner No. 4 (Accused No. 4) to be "omnibus in nature," lacking any specific description of her role in the alleged incident. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion to grant her pre-arrest bail, subject to stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the Settur Police Station.

The Court has following directions:

"i. In the event of the arrest, the Petitioner No.4/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), each with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials.

ii. The Petitioner No.4/Accused No.4 shall make herself available for investigation as and when required;

iii. The Petitioner No.4/Accused No.4 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.

iv. The Petitioner No.4/Accused No.4 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.

v. The Petitioner No.4/Accused No.4 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

vi. The Petitioner No.4/Accused No.4 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court."

Background

The dispute originated from a clash in Kambalapalli Village, leading to Crime No. 39 of 2026. The petitioners argued that they were falsely implicated as a 'counterblast' to an earlier complaint (Crime No. 37 of 2026) lodged by the first petitioner. They claimed that the current FIR was a concocted story designed to harass law-abiding citizens. The State, through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the plea, highlighting the risk of the accused absconding and the severity of the injuries caused. While the Court dismissed the petition for Accused Nos. 1 to 3, it partly allowed the petition regarding Accused No. 4.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7548/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:38059
Case Title: Golla Eranna And Others V. The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI
For the Respondent(s): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (Represented by Mr. A. Sai Rohith, Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 15675